art vs. pornography

[Southtown Press]

Can someone explain this?

If it's about context and intent, I would think an uncensored version of the last one as iconic tribute would have passed muster.

Would it fly if it was in halftone with some squiggly flourishes or a funny little cartoon guy?

Does 'bad' pinup art get a pass?

thoughts?

~L

[MaximumFluoride]

This has been hashed out numerous times. Clay puts up the posters with nudity because it's a poster site.


Context is king.

[allenboe]

None of those are porn because they have a stupid black box covering up the jibbly-bits.

[mnott]

Attorney General's Commission on Pornography: Final Report. July 1986

[scrojo]

yep. bottom line is it's clay's definition that matters here.

what is art/porn is a dead end debate. all subjective.

[scrojo]

......kefauver said bettie was porn.

[victor_howitzer]

clay is like the old testament God. It might not make sense, but he'll burn your ass to the ground just to confuse you with his 'rules'.

[el Jefe]

usually the argument about art v porn is about intent (does it raise the prurient interest?) and does it defy normal/typical community standards. In the first few you could argue that the intent was to make a social commentary or view the body as art or as an ad (which is why Sears can show bras in their newspaper catalogs). The picture of Page is to wank to (well, at least in the fifties) so it would be porn. Granted, the picture is in black and white which is usually considered arty...

[allenboe]

If the subject was paid $10 an hour for a "posing fee" it's Art. If they were paid $2,000 an hour and negotiated a money shot, then it's porn.

[Carlos Artest]

also- most users on here know about the birds & the bees (except maybe mrblonde7)